So we are to assume that Fish indeed performed as described in the agreement? IMO, it seems that if he indeed ``came through`` and provided all that was desired, our dispute with TPL/Moore might have gone better (though I`m not necessarily ``upset`` by that outcome, and realize that Higgins was the missing ingredient).

Even if Fish wins in this current action, roughly 10% of the first $200M or whatever is not THAT big a price to pay (and, really, he probably deserves it). Especially if his assistance had value and improved our stance against TPL/Moore, and furthered the cause to settlement with them (otherwise, where would we be right now? SOL?).

Thanks for the info. And I`m assuming that there is currently some dispute about this agreement (?). Perhaps Fish didn`t fully perform as agreed?

Here I think I`m on top of things, and this pops up! Just goes to show, I KNOW nuttin`!

SGE